using the struct-scheme.hpp and the requirements for
EntryID as a guideline. The goal is to move EntryID
over into the support lib, which means we need to get rid
of all direct proc::asset dependencies. Thus, these generic
ID functions shall form a baseline implementation, while
asset::Struct may provide the previously used implementation
through specialisation -- so the behaviour of EntryID will
not change for the structural assets, but we'll get a more
sane and readable default implementation for all other types.
these speical reference-flavours of a GenNode are built
to stand-in for a full fledged "object" GenNode.
The purpose is to be able to handle sub-trees of objects
efficiently in comparisions and processing.
This is just a draft for now -- kindof a by-catch, since it is
chep to build that DSL on top of the Rec::Mutator.
This DSL could be of value later, when it comes to define
some configuration data inline, in a copact and clear fashion,
without the need to use a bridge to/from JSON
I had added this variation just to check compilation and
forgot to revert ist. Of course, we do *not* want to move
the inwards of our Mutator in the test. Rather, we want
to draw a copy from the mutated state
for the purpose of working out the inner logic, I frequently use the
help of a mindmap -- so why not commiting this alongside? For sure,
it is preliminary and the worked out concepts will be cast in code
and documented on the website. Yet the thought-process leading to
these decisions might be of some interest, at least for myself.
- can build from the supported value types
- is optionally named
- is copyable value, but only assignable within one payload type
- is recursive, for object / tree representation
before engaging into the implementation of lib::Record,
I prefer to conduct a round of planning, to get a clearer
view about the requirements we'll meet when extending
our existing list diff to tree structures
Initially, I considered to build an index table like
collection of ordered attributes. But since our actual
use case is Record<GenNode>, this was ruled out in favour
of just a vector<GenNode>, where the keys are embedded
right within the nameID-Field of GenNode.
A decisive factor was the observation, that this design
is basically forced to encode the attribute keys somehow
into the attribute values, because otherwise the whole
collection like initialisation and iteration would break
down. Thus, a fully generic implementation is not possible,
and a pseudo generic implementation just for the purpose of
writing unit tests would be overkill.
Basically this decision means that Record requires an
explicit specialisation to implement the attribute-key
binding for each value type to use.
Ouch!
Why does C++ lack the most basic everyday stuff?
It needn't be performant. It needn't support some fancy
higher order container. Just join the f***ing strings.
use Bosst?? -- OMG!! pulls in half the metra programming library
and tries to work on any concievable range like object. Just
somehow our Lumiera Forward Iterators aren't "range-like" enough
for boost's taste.
Thus let's code up that fucking for-loop ourselves, once and forever.
This is kind of the logic consequence, since we consider our
functional iterator concept still superior and will continue
to rely on it.
For some time now, I've considered to build a generic bridge
function, to use enable_if and metaprogramming to figure out
if some type is a "Lumiera Forward Iterator" automatically.
But since our concept is to some degree a contract regarding
semantics, which never can be captured by any kind of introspection,
such a bridge implementation would be rather heuristic and
bears the danger to trigger on types actually not intended
as iterator at all. So I consider such a solution as dangerous
and we'll settle with just supplying the necessary bridge
functions as free functions injected for ADL on a case by case base
Introduce the new term "Fork" at various relevant places
within the documentation. We do not entirely purge the
term "track" though; rather we
- make clear that "Fork" is the entity to build tracks
- use "fork" also synonymous to the "tree of tracks"
In Lumiera, "Tracks" are not what you'd expect from
conventional video editing software. They are a mere
grouping devide, and are also used to implement the
"media bins" and tool palettes.
But having "folders" on the timeline would be likewise
confusing, as would be to have a "branch" or "tree".
To get out of that dilemma, we chose an understandable
but deliberately somewhat strange name: "Fork"
It was common understanding on the Mailinglist that we
should handle this renaming in a tuned-down and discrete
way: The UI will continue to show "Tracks" for a familiar
sight and "Bins" in the Asset section. But Lumiera developers
will be nudged to accomodate by renaming the entity in
source code accordingly
Cockoo hashing is a thrilling algorithm.
We investigated it during the time or our first draft
towards a confirugation system in 2008. This usage turned
up some problems -- not sure if based on the implementation
or the algorithm itself; at that time, we just switched
to the probabilistic splay tree. The whole configuration
system effort stalled afterwards; so the cuckoo implementation
remained in tree as a zombie.
This switches the Lumiera UI from GTK-2 to GTK-3
Unfortunately, this move breaks two crucial features, which have been
disabled for now: the display of video and our custom timeline widget.
Since both of these require some reworking, which in fact has already
started, we prefer to do the library and framework switch right away.
over time, a specific Lumiera code writing style has emerged.
The GUI, as it stood, used somewhat different conventions,
which now have been aligned to the common standard.
Basically we use GNU style, with some adjustments for OO-programming,
we prefer CamelCase, and write TypeNames uppercase, variableNames lowercase
it is a widely accepted rule to shape names with the usage site in mind.
Especially this means, that we use the singular form for all kinds
of collections and assortments.
Thus, the namespace should be called "widget" not "widgets",
because at usage site this becomes gui::widget::TimelineWidget
Likewise for "dialogs" and "pannels"
This too was a long-standing issue. While these practices
basically can be considered "common knowledge", experience
showed those topics are frequently unknown even to practised
programmers.
So now we have a single page dealing with all those issues of
code bloat, dependency poliferation, binary dependency resolution
and issues of transitive and circular library dependencies
the corresponding requirements are already reflected in the
SCons build, see Platform.py
NOTE: the current debian package is still based on the preview
Release 0.2.pre from last year. It will be upgraded probably after
the transition to Jessie as reference system
This piece of documentation describes an insideous special case, which
some time ago prevented us from switching to --as-needed linking.
We treat this as a special case (and it is way easier to do so
now, after the reorganisation of our test suite).
deliberately, I've left #948 open to nudge me about writing this doc
This is very arkane, hard to find knowledge about some intricacies
of the dynamic library resolution. Very relevant for Lumiera,
since we use a resolution scheme relative to the location
of the executable. Documenting this stuff was a long-standing issue
a long standing TODO to document the actual start-up sequence, which
is implemented this way since a long time now. There was an unwritten
section in the "Linking and Application Structure", which seems the
apropriate place for this kind of intricate techincal details.
Last week, Benny Lyons was here on visit in munich and he was pondering
the idea of an experimental secondary build system, as a way to learn
more about the source structure of Lumiera. This reminded me to fill
some missing parts of the documentation. Possibly this is also the
right moment to land the GTK-3 transition?
The actual trick to make it work is to use decltype on the function operator
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7943525/is-it-possible-to-figure-out-the-parameter-type-and-return-type-of-a-lambda/7943765#7943765
In addition, we now pick up the functor by template type and
store it under that very type. For one, this cuts the size
of the generated class by a factor of two. And it gives the
compiler the ability to inline a closure as much as is possible,
especially when the created Binder / Mutator lives in the same
reference frame the closure taps into.
to carry out that rather obvious step, I was bound to consider
all the implications of choosing a given layout and handling pattern
for our external structure representation.
Finally, I settled upon the following decisions
- the value space represented within the DataCap is flat, not further structured
- the distinction between "attribute" and "nested object" is merely conceptual
and will be enforced solely by the diff detection / representation protocol
- basically, a nested subtree may appear as an attribute; the difference
between attributes and children lies solely in the way of access and referral:
by-name vs. positional
- it is pointless to save space for the representation of the discriminator ID
- but we can omit any further explicit type tag, because
- we do *not* support programming by switch-on-type, and thus
- we do *not* support full introspection, only a passive type-safety check
- this is *not* a limitation, since we acknowledge that GenNode is a *Monad*
- and the partial function needed within any flatMap implementation
maps naturally onto our Variant-Visitor; thus
- the DataCap can basically just *be* a Variant
- and GenNode has just to supply the neccessary shaffolding
to turn that into a full fledged Monad implementation, including
direct construction by wrapping a value and flatMap with tree walk
All relevant uses will rely on the more strict access policy
implemented with the new util::AccessCasted. Along the same line
of thinking, I've removed the "second try" convenience conversion
from the typed get-Function of OpaqueHolder. Such an unbounded
"convert it somehow" approach is almost never a good idea. Either,
one knows by design the precise type to expect, or alternatively
should rely on the base interface solely.
...with the sole exception of the usage in WrapperPointer,
which in itself looks obsolete to me; we should better re-think
the way we handle "wrapped" objects for the BuilderTools, once
we actually start implementing the Builder
Ticket #450
This mindmap explains some of the ideas and concepts in more detail.
It can be viewed with the "freeplane" mind mapping software.
("freemind" works as well, but will mess up some of the formatting)
note by the committer: this mindmap was really work in progress.
Christoph shared it with me while in discussion. I'll place it
here in the git history, since it might be interesting to se
how the thoughts evolved. Isn't that what mindmaps are all about?
Note: the new Variant implementation is a re-write from scratch
and does not rely on util::AccessCasted any more. Anyway, both
are now thoroughly covered by unit test
NOTE: this was a one-time verification. Unfortunately there is no way
to verify a failing compilation automatically from a unit-test.
Thus we need to comment out these invalid cases, leaving them
here just for later referral. Need to check those manually
for new compilers to be sure!
this overload will be picked only if none of the more specific
overloads is applicable. Instantiating this overload will then
trigger a static assertion failure. This way we sort out
impossible or dangerous combinations at compile time already.
I found no simple way to include the actual type parameters in
the generated error message (string concatenation at compiletime)
The throw-statement is only there to prevent a warning due
to missing return statement.
